I don't see any inherent conflict
Fraggle Rocker said:
In America they already get public benefits: they are exempt from taxation. Everyone else has to pay for their roads, fire protection and other government services because they don't.
And non-religious organizations can get similar benefits: 501(c)(3).
Interestingly, there are some Christian organizations that resent this aspect of tax-exempt status:
Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy."
Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.
For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.
(Kershaw)
In May, 2000, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a church in
Branch v. Rossotti: Branch Ministries had participated in the 1992 election in violation of its tax-exempt status, and the IRS responded by revoking that privilege. Branch Ministries and its pastor, Dan Little, sued the IRS, complaining that the IRS had no statutory authority to revoke a church's tax-exempt status, that the revocation violated its First Amendment rights, and that the IRS violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection guarantees. The D.C. Circuit Court, in 1997, granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS. Branch, of course, appealed.
Senior Judge Buckley issued the opinion of the court on May 12, 2000. And this is actually a somewhat fun decision to read:
The Church argues that, under the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS does not have the statutory authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of a bona fide church. It reasons as follows: section 501(c)(3) refers to tax-exempt status for religious organizations, not churches; section 508, on the other hand, specifically exempts "churches" from the requirement of applying for advance recognition of tax-exempt status, id. § 508(c)(1)(A); therefore, according to the Church, its tax-exempt status is derived not from section 501(c)(3), but from the lack of any provision in the Code for the taxation of churches. The Church concludes from this that it is not subject to taxation and that the IRS is therefore powerless to place conditions upon or to remove its tax-exempt status as a church.
We find this argument more creative than persuasive. The simple answer, of course, is that whereas not every religious organization is a church, every church is a religious organization. More to the point, irrespective of whether it was required to do so, the Church applied to the IRS for an advance determination of its tax-exempt status. The IRS granted that recognition and now seeks to withdraw it. CAPA gives the IRS this power.
(Boldface accent added)
Additionally, after laughing off the Church's lament that taxes would destroy it, the court cited a 1983 Supreme Court decision against an anti-tax organization: "Congress has not violated [an organization's] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities".
As to the Fifth Amendment complaint, the court simply ruled that Branch failed to establish selective prosecution. And ten years later, churches are still upset that they are being treated equally to other non-profit organizations that aren't religious.
I don't see any real conflict in a church's tax-exempt status as a general proposition. At least until they start actually
receiving specific public benefits. I would expect that organizations participating in the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, or whatever the hell we call it, should be subject to EEOC regulation. When I was a child, my family was what I call "Holiday Christians". Easter and Christmas Eve were the two days a year you could be sure to find us in church. And when we first attended the Lutheran church that later confirmed me, it congregated in the cafeteria of my elementary school while they built the
actual church building. I think as long as a church chooses to use public facilities in such a manner, they ought to be subject to EEOC regulation.
I would have to actually build a case regarding whether or not non-religious 501(c)(3) entities should be exempt from EEOC regulation, but it seems reasonable enough to me. This would either open non-profits to whatever discriminatory hiring practices they choose (e.g., I could start a literary organization that qualifies under 501(c)(3) and refuse to hire Christians or heterosexuals, if that's how the churches get to do it), or force churches to drop yet another aspect of their presumed legal superiority.
I would actually hope for the latter; I think it would be a bad idea to turn us all loose like that. But, no, I'm not disturbed by church tax exemptions regardless of how they feel about a 501(c)(3) that distributes condoms to anyone who needs them regardless of age, place of origin, sexual orientaiton, &c.
____________________
Notes:
Kershaw, Peter. "501c3 Facts". (n.d.) HushMoney.org. February 3, 2010. http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm
Buckley, James. "Opinion for the Court". Branch Ministries v. Rossotti. United States D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. May 12, 2000. FindLaw.com. February 3, 2010. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=docket&no=995097a
